Discussing how we can improve Fort Battle rebalancing
- Thread starter RaiderRt
- Start date
The point is to strategically apply the available tools to seek balance in fort fights
foscock
Ex-Team Member
Goober if you are going to give an answer, give one that actually answers the question please.
I have a few concerns (big surprise).... I'll try to use small words, so every strategist can understand.
#1 Changing the limits to attackers/defenders on short notice is bad. Rankers aren't expecting it, they usually sign on 30 minutes b4 start.
#2. Doing that and announcing it an hour or so before battle compounds the problem. If you can't announce it near the time the battle was dug, don't change it.
#3. Considering the above, doing all that stuff and taking a spot in the battle as a de-facto mod team member is a very bad look, especially since you were driving and died after 32 rounds. Please stop doing that, you will kill someone in real life looking at your phone, and I'd say Inno might be liable.
#4. This game is made up of PLAYERS, not "fort battle strategists". As PLAYERS, we PLAY the game. We PLAYERS understand why one side wins or loses because we PLAY the game. Some have PLAYED the game for many years, some have only PLAYED a short time, but have learnt how it works. We do not need to ever hear the word "meta" again, we just do the stuff that needs to be done to fight the battle. As PLAYERS, most of us have realised that the fort formula is what it is, and we don't need a minder-strategist to artificially shift it. We actually fort fight, not drive to work.
#5 If all of the above falls on deaf ears, at least never touch a big fort again. You Goober, are responsible for about 40 people not being able to attend that battle, whilst you took a spot and drove to work. You turned what could have been a fun & rare large battle into a sad, predictable medium battle, and annoyed 40 players enough so some won't ever sign up for a large battle again. As a "fort battle strategist", is that really your strategy or are you just gonna say "meta" 100 more times?
I have a few concerns (big surprise).... I'll try to use small words, so every strategist can understand.
#1 Changing the limits to attackers/defenders on short notice is bad. Rankers aren't expecting it, they usually sign on 30 minutes b4 start.
#2. Doing that and announcing it an hour or so before battle compounds the problem. If you can't announce it near the time the battle was dug, don't change it.
#3. Considering the above, doing all that stuff and taking a spot in the battle as a de-facto mod team member is a very bad look, especially since you were driving and died after 32 rounds. Please stop doing that, you will kill someone in real life looking at your phone, and I'd say Inno might be liable.
#4. This game is made up of PLAYERS, not "fort battle strategists". As PLAYERS, we PLAY the game. We PLAYERS understand why one side wins or loses because we PLAY the game. Some have PLAYED the game for many years, some have only PLAYED a short time, but have learnt how it works. We do not need to ever hear the word "meta" again, we just do the stuff that needs to be done to fight the battle. As PLAYERS, most of us have realised that the fort formula is what it is, and we don't need a minder-strategist to artificially shift it. We actually fort fight, not drive to work.
#5 If all of the above falls on deaf ears, at least never touch a big fort again. You Goober, are responsible for about 40 people not being able to attend that battle, whilst you took a spot and drove to work. You turned what could have been a fun & rare large battle into a sad, predictable medium battle, and annoyed 40 players enough so some won't ever sign up for a large battle again. As a "fort battle strategist", is that really your strategy or are you just gonna say "meta" 100 more times?
Deleted User - 4139925
honestly i am starting to agree with foscock that the problem is the alliance for which those changes are made, not the balance, although hwga clearly has the level advantage things could be much better for looney
those "strategists" in looney can't even rank properly in fort battles after 10 years of playing this game and when you say it to their face they start crying like little *****es. there's 0 teamplay and game knowledge. ZERO. leads are trash, builds are trash, ranking is trash, strategies are trash...i didn't see one single tank that currently has gringo tank properly in battles. ONE.
also, you do split starts in larges and mediums in this meta you deserve this **** that's going on
i would understand changing the caps with 2 more players in defense or whatever so hwga doesn't win all attacks but removing 30 to 50 players is RIDICULOUS
the only time i enjoyed this game in the last 3 years was when i was in hwga last summer and i'm really mad i left because i am not willing to show up to battles anymore when all that is promoted is mediocrity and trash casual attitude OH WE CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT CUZ THEY ARE STRONGER THAN US
those "strategists" in looney can't even rank properly in fort battles after 10 years of playing this game and when you say it to their face they start crying like little *****es. there's 0 teamplay and game knowledge. ZERO. leads are trash, builds are trash, ranking is trash, strategies are trash...i didn't see one single tank that currently has gringo tank properly in battles. ONE.
also, you do split starts in larges and mediums in this meta you deserve this **** that's going on
i would understand changing the caps with 2 more players in defense or whatever so hwga doesn't win all attacks but removing 30 to 50 players is RIDICULOUS
the only time i enjoyed this game in the last 3 years was when i was in hwga last summer and i'm really mad i left because i am not willing to show up to battles anymore when all that is promoted is mediocrity and trash casual attitude OH WE CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT CUZ THEY ARE STRONGER THAN US
Vacsorabeer
Member
Agree.
Zuluski
Well-Known Member
the point of the strategist is to also ensure that as many players as possible can join fort fights especially NOW when INNO increased the xp to be had in fort battles.
If your only idea on how to do this is changing a large fort into a medium, then you should quietly resign and rather concentrate on your driving.
If your only idea on how to do this is changing a large fort into a medium, then you should quietly resign and rather concentrate on your driving.
canufeelit
Well-Known Member
i've always thought it strange that someone with so much power over battles is an active participant in those same battles
and the huge drop in numbers for the last colo large was way over the top
and the huge drop in numbers for the last colo large was way over the top
darthmaul99174
Well-Known Member
I respect genuine good will behind said actions & how it all started, lets not dogpile anyone.
The role he's played has exhausted all it can offer to combat a broken game and its probably time to move on as its not wanted anymore, At least step back and act on a much much smaller scale for now.
The role he's played has exhausted all it can offer to combat a broken game and its probably time to move on as its not wanted anymore, At least step back and act on a much much smaller scale for now.
I would like to remind you that I am the one who can make administrative decisions to the team. The proposal of voting to get rid of one of my team members is outrageous. If you have a problem, please contact me directly through the support system.
But okay, I understand that the discussion can be more productive sometimes if happens on the forum. Okay, we can discuss it here, but only about how we can help the Fort Battle Strategist and how we can improve Fort Fights. Insulting, defaming or accusing them is against the rules and the forum is not a place for such discussion, so it will not be tolerated against anyone from The West Team. If you have a problem with anyone from the team the only way to indicate it is by getting in touch with me through the support system.
Thank you for the understanding!
canufeelit
Well-Known Member
i agree this was done the wrong way. i also think this is a discussion that needs to be had
Lyrinx.
Well-Known Member
At least it was funny
DeletedUser15368
People seem to have issues knowing what the caps are for a given battle - to be honest I sometimes used to have to check what the caps were before they started regularly changing - it would be generally helpful for ranking if the current battle caps were prominently displayed on the ranking screen.
Also if theres time, taking the opportunity it to make the default ranking better, on par with scripts.
The average active PvP player is somewhere around level 125-130 - the level cap was a huge mistake, so let's expand the capabilities of the fort battle reward tool, so that exp potions can be given to under 150s, who participate in battles, so we can close the proficiency gap as quickly as possible.
Was it not previously the case that both alliance leaders had to agree to change the caps, or was that just for moving a battle?
I'll add, I think it's pretty much always fine to mess with GM dug awesomia, especially if there a reason and/or rewards for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
PrancingPurplePony
Well-Known Member
For what it is worth as a casual Fort Fighter that mostly only does FF during events, I don't want to see any restrictions based on level or class.
Being required to sign up for the side someone doesn't want to be on [because they don't have the proper gear or any other reason], could mean they won't be joining at all, so that hasn't really helped equal the numbers, it just lessen the numbers attending.
Being required to sign up for the side someone doesn't want to be on [because they don't have the proper gear or any other reason], could mean they won't be joining at all, so that hasn't really helped equal the numbers, it just lessen the numbers attending.
Zuluski
Well-Known Member
since we are discussing here how we can help the fort fight strategist i dont think i will discover America by saying that in order for any strategist to be effective, he needs the knowledge and understanding of the subject at hand. Goober does have the knowledge but of things that majority of regular fort fighters simply dont seem to understand and majority of them have been practicing the art of fort fighting on Colorado from the very beginning. As strange as that sounds, it simply means that most of us that have been fighting on Colorado from the start of this world know jack since what Goober proposes is beyond comprehension to us.
Secondly, i dont think i will be the only one that has the problem with understanding of majority of Goobers communications. If a person conveys the message to the masses, he or she has to make sure that the language and terminology used is not only understood by him but that it will be understood by the masses. English is my first language, I do have a uni degree but i do have a difficulty understanding the statistical "meta" bla bla bla that Goober tells us. If people can't understand what he is saying, what is the point of saying anything at all?
Lastly, the thing that confuses the crap out of me is that INNO through Goobers actions deprives players of one of the fundamental PVP aspects of the game, namely fort fighting. It is a common knowledge that for years now the number of players have been on a steady decrease and many people across the board have put in much time and effort to do everything possible to keep the fort fighting going. We have been especially successful in doing that on Colorado. Now, after the max level increase and the xp increase from fort fights, we see more people then ever trying to join fort fights even if it is for the sole reason to level up faster.
Yet INNO through Goobers actions decreases the number of avialable slots in fort fights thus intentionally turning away all those wanting to take part in this aspect of the game.
Many players have invested a lot of time and sometimes money to get skilled and equipped in fort fight gear or have started playing the game with the idea of fort fighting, yet INNO is failing to provide for them access to one of the fundamental parts of the game. That surely is not the way it is supposed to work. One can almost compare such actions to having installed a FPS GAME only to find out that the developers have forgotten to provide the player with any bullets. It is a blatant misrepresentation to the existing and new player base.
If there is any logical reason for that, I think I am not the only one that would like to hear what that logical reason is.
Secondly, i dont think i will be the only one that has the problem with understanding of majority of Goobers communications. If a person conveys the message to the masses, he or she has to make sure that the language and terminology used is not only understood by him but that it will be understood by the masses. English is my first language, I do have a uni degree but i do have a difficulty understanding the statistical "meta" bla bla bla that Goober tells us. If people can't understand what he is saying, what is the point of saying anything at all?
Lastly, the thing that confuses the crap out of me is that INNO through Goobers actions deprives players of one of the fundamental PVP aspects of the game, namely fort fighting. It is a common knowledge that for years now the number of players have been on a steady decrease and many people across the board have put in much time and effort to do everything possible to keep the fort fighting going. We have been especially successful in doing that on Colorado. Now, after the max level increase and the xp increase from fort fights, we see more people then ever trying to join fort fights even if it is for the sole reason to level up faster.
Yet INNO through Goobers actions decreases the number of avialable slots in fort fights thus intentionally turning away all those wanting to take part in this aspect of the game.
Many players have invested a lot of time and sometimes money to get skilled and equipped in fort fight gear or have started playing the game with the idea of fort fighting, yet INNO is failing to provide for them access to one of the fundamental parts of the game. That surely is not the way it is supposed to work. One can almost compare such actions to having installed a FPS GAME only to find out that the developers have forgotten to provide the player with any bullets. It is a blatant misrepresentation to the existing and new player base.
If there is any logical reason for that, I think I am not the only one that would like to hear what that logical reason is.
JWillow
Well-Known Member
@Zuluski
Let me get this straight you preference is to have the limits changed back to innos original numbers. So that everyone can get into battles that will lead to most players who like fort battles to leave the game? Just to allow the odd experience seeker in or event multi surge to dictate the numbers?
Just looking for clarity on what you want, good battles or bad ones? As the ones since the level increase have been unplayable for som of the player base, not for you or yours, I know you are great.
Let me get this straight you preference is to have the limits changed back to innos original numbers. So that everyone can get into battles that will lead to most players who like fort battles to leave the game? Just to allow the odd experience seeker in or event multi surge to dictate the numbers?
Just looking for clarity on what you want, good battles or bad ones? As the ones since the level increase have been unplayable for som of the player base, not for you or yours, I know you are great.
C0OPeR
Well-Known Member
for 2-3 month , both looney toons and HWGA alliance councils tried balance battles when level cap removed as HWGA have advantage of levels and for this reason have more hp and some more damager ... in council board we can not find a town or players willing change side for balance matter and in our HWGA forum , most town hats think , its LT problem and they need to solve this balance matter themself while LT leaders and councils gave up after lost many forts and no chance to win an attack !
so the best idea was give more advantage number for LT attacks and defence
in yesterday battle , both side number was low and many missed battle , but if it was 125 attacker ( LT side ) vs 95 defender ( HWGA side ) , it can be a balance battle as 30 more gun of LT can catch our higher hp and damager also players did not missed much
for today battle , i asked goob to increase cap for 106 defence ( LT ) vs 106 attacker ( HWGA ) , this cap made battle balance this time as defence equal number with tower and wall bonus can catch our high hp and damager untill we mount walls and towers
so the best idea was give more advantage number for LT attacks and defence
in yesterday battle , both side number was low and many missed battle , but if it was 125 attacker ( LT side ) vs 95 defender ( HWGA side ) , it can be a balance battle as 30 more gun of LT can catch our higher hp and damager also players did not missed much
for today battle , i asked goob to increase cap for 106 defence ( LT ) vs 106 attacker ( HWGA ) , this cap made battle balance this time as defence equal number with tower and wall bonus can catch our high hp and damager untill we mount walls and towers
Annie-bell
Well-Known Member
I think people getting bit confused or frustrated of so many changes some seen coming from colo council which people were used to, and then so many coming from fort specialist often via saloon discussions about calculations and meta stuff. Im relatively new to colo (2-3 years) but in many of worlds for some time. Having loved some legendary battles in worlds, echo comments that see so many worlds dry up and even if small battles no formulas or caps or any inno changes have real impact as if just 1 or 2 more people join one side or either its predictable outcomes. There are lots of people like me in search of big battles, that feel challenging and speak to why some enjoy ff's so much. Its pretty easy to see many who luved this game for years also searching and we have seen some compeitive stuff in newest world for few months (typically prior world die out once people move to newest), but see groups in AZ keep working and some challenging battles there and ofc ... colo where many joined, like me, with hearing there is councils (made up of people from both sides, no inno) that move players, towns or other things for last 10 years to keep it competitive and exciting .. and ofc drew in alot of people to colo. Absoutely commend the players council for doing that for so long. Recognize the goober role came into implementation (we can assume with best interests) year ago or whenever which never had for 10 years of colo's successful history. So looking at the significant amount of comments about changes from the fort specilists i would have to agree that maybe retuning to the pior 10 years of letting council and resetting oiginal fort caps and fort towers and stuff to see what that looks like now esp with hint of new ff changes coming in and that mabye the role of ff specialist could be to support players council. Totally have confidence in history and success of council and only thing would like to see is maybe updates provided to all regulaly.
From players point of view, can say that heard of the levels of 125 v 96 for a large fort for the Feb 9 battle at one point, then heard it changed to 107 v 88 after the ff was declared. I was particularly interested in this one as was only fort our town has and was one that had to rank. Totally okay with whatever changes deemed but if i hadnt been online 1 hour before battle to see goober announce that he reviewed his calculations and changed caps about hour before battle to 107 v 84 in a large fort. Havent ranked before in colo and would of heard of even further decrease at one point but made ranking very tough... its normally people yelling at rankers if they dont get in .. this time people expressed frustration at goober so maybe get hint of what our regular rankers go thru when sudden changes.
So think need to be clear of changes, and who do we listen to council or goober. Would like to see communication to eveyone bit more then 1 hour before battles. But biggest thing is know this was first large for while but players were left out. People knew they may not be included in med but larges gong from 140vs120 to 107 to 84 for the Feb 9 battle .. 40 less spots per side was significant. We did have about 110 sign ups People didt understand why couldnt increase med to be more and fight med but with limiting larges to only having 107v84 when people are turned away when not even event on seemed like omg there is no chance if little guy to ever get in any battles and people just turn away.
I didnt see beginning of today's battle but see it was comment was capped at 106v106 which the actual battle for today was 100 vs 96 so not sure if because of confusion neither side filled or if cap was decreased again by 10 more.
I know im in mindset that allowing more people to ff's if they want to go is success and then the council historically would move things about to work on competitiveness so do agree that purposely turning players away in larges, during non events, but esp in events is going to make people react like they did last few days or give rankers heck (lol feel for usual rankers, i just did it this once with the 84 cap).
Im not saying do away with roles but need to communicate and not all understand the calculations and meta talk and to see it . I do know colo success has been because of players and council for 10 years that did make changes and tbh at times i see the fort specialist saying things different then council and we all left confused and seeing 40 people not able to attend. I guess what i would like to know is what does INNO want from colo and other worlds to be seen as successful .. to many of us its active players who are able to join in all parts of game they wish.
edit .. sorry did check at heard about 84 from 88 before the battle from telegram, thought was from the announcement 1 hour prior to battle. so appreciate that being communicated to rankers.
From players point of view, can say that heard of the levels of 125 v 96 for a large fort for the Feb 9 battle at one point, then heard it changed to 107 v 88 after the ff was declared. I was particularly interested in this one as was only fort our town has and was one that had to rank. Totally okay with whatever changes deemed but if i hadnt been online 1 hour before battle to see goober announce that he reviewed his calculations and changed caps about hour before battle to 107 v 84 in a large fort. Havent ranked before in colo and would of heard of even further decrease at one point but made ranking very tough... its normally people yelling at rankers if they dont get in .. this time people expressed frustration at goober so maybe get hint of what our regular rankers go thru when sudden changes.
So think need to be clear of changes, and who do we listen to council or goober. Would like to see communication to eveyone bit more then 1 hour before battles. But biggest thing is know this was first large for while but players were left out. People knew they may not be included in med but larges gong from 140vs120 to 107 to 84 for the Feb 9 battle .. 40 less spots per side was significant. We did have about 110 sign ups People didt understand why couldnt increase med to be more and fight med but with limiting larges to only having 107v84 when people are turned away when not even event on seemed like omg there is no chance if little guy to ever get in any battles and people just turn away.
I didnt see beginning of today's battle but see it was comment was capped at 106v106 which the actual battle for today was 100 vs 96 so not sure if because of confusion neither side filled or if cap was decreased again by 10 more.
I know im in mindset that allowing more people to ff's if they want to go is success and then the council historically would move things about to work on competitiveness so do agree that purposely turning players away in larges, during non events, but esp in events is going to make people react like they did last few days or give rankers heck (lol feel for usual rankers, i just did it this once with the 84 cap).
Im not saying do away with roles but need to communicate and not all understand the calculations and meta talk and to see it . I do know colo success has been because of players and council for 10 years that did make changes and tbh at times i see the fort specialist saying things different then council and we all left confused and seeing 40 people not able to attend. I guess what i would like to know is what does INNO want from colo and other worlds to be seen as successful .. to many of us its active players who are able to join in all parts of game they wish.
edit .. sorry did check at heard about 84 from 88 before the battle from telegram, thought was from the announcement 1 hour prior to battle. so appreciate that being communicated to rankers.
Last edited:
the spoon
Member
What makes you think that right now you have good battles ?
Obviously you want ALL the players to join the fights. In the near future you will need those players to fill your fort. If you reject them now, they will ignore you later when you need them to fill your battle